MAGNUS Leadership: Using Principled Negotiation to Improve International Negotiation

MAGNUS Leadership: Using Principled Negotiation to Improve International Negotiation

Alexander Javidi (National Command and Staff College, USA), Larry Long (Illinois State University, USA), Mitch Javidi (National Command and Staff College, USA), Brooks Hill (Trinity University, USA), Anthony Normore (California State University – Dominguez Hills, USA & National Command and Staff College, USA) and James Klopovic (Credible Leadership Organization, USA)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-8516-9.ch005

Abstract

The primary purpose of this chapter is to examine how leadership connects to principled and international negotiation. International negotiation is conceptualized with an in-depth description of the process followed by a description of negotiation styles. A corollary purpose is to extend the discussion of negotiation by introducing and defining MAGNUS leadership and how it can translate into negotiation. The authors offer a few practical tips for beginning the journey of becoming MAGNUS. Recommendation for international MAGNUS negotiators are offered.
Chapter Preview
Top

Introduction

In 1994, “Principled Negotiation” (Hill, Long, & Javidi, 1994) was proposed as an approach to peaceful international negotiation and conflict management. Two decades ago, the authors noted that:

The increasing interdependence among peoples and nations is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it compels attention to differences and thus fosters conflict; on the other hand, it provides a wonderful prospect for development of the ability to resolve our differences and conflicts. Despite the promising opportunities presented by this interdependence and an amazing technology the world is a boiling cauldron of conflicts which threaten harmony and the social fabric of many nations and regions of the world. Instead of using the available potential constructively, people are so blinded by self-interest that they engage in destructive actions which sacrifice mutual development. Unfortunately, these episodes are common throughout the world. (Hill, Long, & Javidi, 1994, p. 194)

Although this observation was made in the 1990’s, there is evidence that these circumstances still exist and will continue in the foreseeable future. Projections for the years 2010 to 2030 suggest that leading nations, such as G-20 (the 20 major world economies), will not develop and implement appropriate policies to manage international weapons proliferation, deal with increasingly bitter socio-economic divisions, and adjust global environmental constraints (Rogers, 2004). These circumstances underscore the importance of leadership to effectively use negotiation as a key tool for international conflict management now and for the future (Creede, Fisher-Yoshida, & Gallegos, 2012; Hackman & Johnson, 2013; Normore & Erbe, 2013). Recent negotiations (August, 2015) to avoid escalation of military conflict between North and South Korea are a case in point. Furthermore, conflict projections for the future provide justification for revisiting and expanding the concept of “principled negotiation” to include elements of leadership and credibility.

In the latter portion of the Twentieth Century, experts studied the international negotiation process from diverse viewpoints. Much of this was likely motivated by the peace imperative or concern as to whether or not persons with diverse backgrounds (to include gender, age, ethnicity, ideology, geography, religion, language, etc.) can coexist peacefully (Martin & Nakayama, 2008). Clearly, many scholars have been motivated with the hope that people might settle disputes peacefully (Paupp, 2014; Pruitt & Kim, 2004). This body of literature draws heavily upon communication, education, psychology, sociology, political science, management, and other disciplines to discover and create concepts, principles, and best practices that will lead to effective negotiation outcomes (e.g., see Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006 & 2015; Watkins, 2002; Kolb & Williams, 2003). Regardless of scholarly orientation, no one can contest the centrality of communication in local, national, and international negotiation arenas (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2013).

Key Terms in this Chapter

Technological Dimension: Concern for methods and tools used to accomplish tasks; for purposes of this chapter, this dimension emphasizes transportation and communication/information technologies.

Intercultural Communication: Communication (creation and consumption of messages) among individuals from different cultures who often possess differing social norms and rules, as well as different languages, experiences, and world views.

Cultural Dimension: Concern for the behaviors and underlying values, motives, beliefs, knowledge, meanings, ethics, patterns of interaction, etc. that identify a specific “cultural” group and also differentiates it from other cultures.

Political/Legal Dimension: Concern for formal rules which govern organizational, governmental, national conduct; methods of creating rules/laws/policy and methods for rule enforcement; electoral or position appointment practices, executive or administrative influence, and adjudication processes.

Contextual Subsystem: The input dynamic of the negotiation process that contains cultural, social, political/legal, technological, and economic/competitive dimensions.

International Negotiation: A communication function of international relations that is used for the purpose of mutual adaptation in order to' accomplish specific goals.

Credibility: Perceptions of an individual’s trustworthiness and expertise; one’s level of believability during communication is influenced by the perceived level of their credibility.

Economic/Competitive Dimension: Concern for acquisition and management of financial resources; competitive aspects of this dimension consist of individuals, groups, organizations, nations, or entities who possess goals that may stimulate competition for resources, markets or alliances.

Outcomes Subsystem: Concern for interaction between people and consequent effects or outcomes; three categories of outcomes are considered tangible, symbolic, and relational results.

MAGNUS Leadership: The natural pursuit of virtue. The MAGNUS leader continuously seeks ideal character by pursuing virtues and in the process, learns how to serve with distinction and how to live a life worth living.

Social Dimension: Concern for the values, norms, rules, and roles; one of the greatest sources of influence on human behavior, emanating from the cultural dimension.

Communication Subsystem: The throughput dynamic of the negotiation process that contains the negotiators and messages.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset